From PENN STATE and the department of overheated, tired, rhetoric in an El Niño year, comes this ZOMG! press release from Michael Mann and company. It’s just modeling sophistry, driven by the usual agenda, because not only is he saying that much of the last century was from AGW, he’s saying all the previous research is wrong by simply making a bet that the climate he thinks is happening aligns with odds calculated on a computer, and natural variation, El Nino, solar variance, aerosols, and a whole host of other climate factors just don’t matter. It’s basically just another headline grabber.
Of course, this sort of circular climate betting has all been done before, such as the ridiculous “wheel of climate” from MIT in 2009 that nobody paid attention to.

Oh, wait, maybe Mike did.
Odds are overwhelming that record heat due to climate change
Record-setting temperatures over the past century and a half are extremely unlikely to have occurred without human-caused climate change, but the odds of that happening are not quite as low as previously reported, according to an international team of meteorologists.
“The press reports last year about the unlikely nature of recent global temperature records raised some very interesting questions, but the scientists quoted hadn’t done a rigorous calculation,” said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of meteorology and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State. “As a result, the probabilities reported for observing the recent runs of record temperature by chance alone were far lower than what we suspected the true probabilities are. ”
Although the new odds of chance producing recent runs of record temperatures are greater than the odds previously reported in the news — between 1 in 27 million and 1 in 650 million — they are still incredibly slim at between 1 in 5 thousand and 1 in 170 thousand. Including the data for 2015, which came in after the study was completed, makes the odds even slimmer.
The reason for the inaccuracy of the previous probability calculations is that the individual yearly temperatures analyzed are not independent of each other.
“Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next,” said Mann.
In calculating the odds, the previous reports did not take into account that the data did not end simply because December 31 occurred, but that trends overlap into previous and subsequent years. This needs to be taken into account to determine the real probabilities of chance causing the warming events.
“We provided a method for doing this based on combining information from state-of-the-art climate model simulations with the observational temperature record, and we used this method to estimate the probabilities correctly,” said Mann.
Using a combination of observations and climate model simulations, the researchers examined temperatures from both the Northern Hemisphere and the entire globe for specific groups of years. They examined scenarios for record warm years of 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2014; for nine of the 10 warmest years occurring since 2000; and for 13 of the warmest 15 years occurring since 2000. They chose the last two scenarios because these are the ones previously reported in news accounts.
The reason that Mann’s team found the probability of naturally occurring global warming more likely than previously reported in the news, is that the effective size of their statistical sample was considerably smaller than estimates based simply on the number of years available. This “serial correlation” means that the chance likelihood of runs of warm temperature — nine very warm years over the course of a decade — is much greater than if temperatures were uncorrelated from one year to the next.
The researchers tried a variety of different data sources and statistical approaches and found that in all cases, the odds of the patterns of warming occurring with no human intervention were similarly low.
The researchers note in today’s (Jan. XX) issue of Nature Scientific Reports, that “while considerably greater than cited in some recent media reports, these odds are low enough to suggest that recent observed runs of record temperatures are extremely unlikely to have occurred in the absence of human-caused global warming.
“2015 is again the warmest year on record, which adds even more weight to our findings,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans, Potsdam University, Germany. “What is more, the anomalous warmth has led to unprecedented local heat waves across the world — sadly resulting in loss of life and aggravating droughts and wildfires. The risk of heat extremes has been multiplied due to human greenhouse-gas emissions, as our data analysis shows.”
By contrast, they found that the odds that human activity caused the warming are relatively high. Considering human-caused warming, they find the probabilities of nine of the 10 warmest years and 13 of the warmest 15 years occurring since the beginning of the 21st century, to be 88 percent and 83 percent, respectively, for the Northern Hemisphere.
“It just seemed like it was important to do this right, and address, in a defensible way, the interesting and worthwhile question of how unlikely it is that the recent run of record temperatures might have arisen by chance alone,” said Mann.
The recent record temperature years are roughly 600 to 130,000 times more likely to have occurred under human-caused conditions than in their absence, according to the researchers. These findings underscore the impact that human forcing has already had on temperature extremes.
###
Also working on this project were Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Martin Tingley, senior research analyst, Insurance Australia Group; and Sonya K. Miller, programmer/analyst in meteorology, Penn State.
show me the bodies
No numbers were harmed in the fudging of this paper.
MM
Depends on your definition of “harmed”. They were certainly molested.
No real numbers were actually used, it was all done with CGI.
“No real numbers were actually used, it was all done with CGI.”
Climate Generated Idiocy?
I think they did employ some serious circular reasoning using their betting wheel!
The bodies exist in computer models. But they’re there. Trust me.
My lovely lady wife teaches , among other things, advanced courses in statistics for college students.
I would suspect that she would take one look at this, and suggest that the student handing in work of this calibre should consider a less demanding discipline.
Probably in the waste collection field.
Or Climate ‘Science’
Wouldn’t that be Waste Production???
You want chips with that?
Sorry – there is something needed to actually run [if not simply be a front of house, chip-asker] a good burger joint . . . .
Auto
Auto….no one would trust this “Mann” with their food! Are you kidding? It would either be raw or burned because he can’t adjust consistently! And bland? Nothing is as dull and lifeless as something he’s handled.
So the question is: If Mann and Co. are so good at modelling the future, how come they are not rolling in dough from the Wall Street and the Stock Market? Predicting whether the market will go up or down tomorrow is child’s play as compared to predicting the climate years in the future.
So with all the computer power, modelling skills and math smarts they posses, why have they not cornered the market and brought in billions for Penn State? You would think that all the big investment houses would be lining up outside Penn State for a chance to gleam some knowledge from the Great Oracle.
And why end there? With all their skill at calculating the odds, they should own Atlantic City by now, and be on their way to owning a large share of Los Vegas, Monte Carlo and Macau. Something doesn’t add up.
fred
Won’t V£ad the Pre$ident leave his trillion to Penn State?
The ‘Science’ is settled. No?
Or am I conflating the ascetic Ex-PM Vladimir Putin with a jolly similar guy with super-Midas wealth, who happens to share a name, and perhaps some buddies in the KGB [or what it’s called now]?
Auto
A genuine expert can always foretell a thing that is 500 years away easier than he can a thing that’s only 500 seconds off.
– Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court
+infallibly
+ Lots!!
Well, here is a candidate shown:
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
“Record-setting temperatures over the past century and a half” is where I stopped reading Mikey’s latest fantasy.
Michael Mann has been thoroughly discredited for outright fraud, and more than once. Why does anyone still pay the slightest attention to anything he says or writes?
From what I have read, even the other warmunists consider him to be an embarrassment.
He one of the fools that keeps opening his mouth! A fool does not know he a fool especially when he associates himself with only fools.
Mann speaks the warmunist language. They bow down and put ashes on their heads when he speaks.
“Mann speaks the warmunist language. They bow down and put ashes on their heads when he speaks.”
I know it looks like that from a certain angle, but I assure you, most of them have just collapsed in hysterical laughter or are trying to hide their faces so no one can put them and Mann in the same place at the same time. 🙂
In general, I stop reading at “model”, unless there are photos and its in the Entertainment section.
Simply pathetic.
Start with the answer you want then track back, adjusting the models and data time and again until you get the desired result. Bingo!
Given that climate cycles can take hundreds of years (eg WMP and back, LIA and forward to the present etc), it should be completely beleedin’ obvious to anyone that we do not have satisfactory data (especially on a global basis) to draw the conclusions that these warmunists have arrived at. To elucidate, you cannot be certain to the degree that these fools postulate, that what they are seeing is man-made beyond any reasonable, statistical doubt.
And despite this, their models still found that:
“By contrast, they found that the odds that human activity caused the warming are relatively high. Considering human-caused warming, they find the probabilities of nine of the 10 warmest years and 13 of the warmest 15 years occurring since the beginning of the 21st century, to be 88 percent and 83 percent, respectively, for the Northern Hemisphere.”
What does this say of the models they use? They only achieved up to 88 percent probability of the recent decade being the warmest on record when starting at a cool point and adding both natural and man made positive forces. This is like saying, there is a 12% chance that your child will be taller at the age of 5 than at the age of 18.
Even though the warmest decade on record for the part of Pennsylvania where Penn State’s main campus, and probably Mann’s office, is located was the 1950’s.
Any wonder he used 1998 as the bottom end of his study.
Ian
Wash your mouth out – the ‘Science’ is settled.
We hear this every time a new advance is made, so I guess it must be right. Every time.
Auto
PS, as a Euro-peasant when WE won a Nobel, I think I may be a co-joint-fraternal-demi-semi-hemi-conjunctive winner of a Nobel [for something or other. Economic? Ahhh. Maybe not . . . .]
…of course, I meant MWP. I’m sure WMP means something to someone but perhaps not Medieval etc
WMP=Windows Media Player.
LOL
WMP. Bloatware. Like Mann.
WMP – Weapons of Mass Patheticness
“WMP” = Weapons of Math Pollution
Weirdness Multiplied Prolificly
White Male Pumpkin
Whimsical Meaningless Predictions
What Mann Pronounces
What Madness, Professor!
What Makes Profit
What Models Projected
Where’s My Parka?
WMP – Worthless Mann Prediction
When I read this piece was about the latest Michael Mann study, my eyes just glazed over and my brain switched off. There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to respect about the writings from the scam artist of the 21st century.
What I find disturbing is that Byron Steinman also has his name on this work. I just dunno…
Unprecedented … they keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
‘Unprecedented’ in climate séance & MSM, means it’s hasn’t happened since I last used the word….. (usually last week ).
They should start working “IIIINConcEEEIVable” in their papers. Then I’d actually take time to read it.
INCONCEIVABLE!!
I’d vote for INCREDIBLE. That would have the advantage of being true, but not in the way they mean.
Quoting one of my favorite movies. +1. Even better if you can include ROUSs
Climate change doesn’t mean what they think it means.
Quite right, “state-of-the-art climate model simulations” , it’s art not science, with some apologies to those with an arts degree.
And surely “The risk of heat extremes has been multiplied due to human greenhouse-gas emissions, as our data analysis shows.” should have been “temperature extremes” or didn’t their modelling suggest there might have been some snow coming.
You know I have recently discovered that modern art societies are almost akin to climate science:
Excellent! Same mindset exactly! GK
Considering that the “temperature” is only a delta on the temperature of the previous year, the chance of 2015 is hotter than 2014 is 50%. Of course, if you’re adjusting the measured temperature, the chance will be much higher than 50%.
BTW, where are all these wildfires and droughts?
2015 was the worst year for wildfires since at least 1960: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-worst-wildfire-year.html
Washington state had the largest wildfire in their history – even given much better firefighting equipment and resources available now: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/24/washington-wildfires-largest/32302927/
Chris,
You don’t think that forest management practices has anything to do with that statistic? That is inconceivable.
When you stop every tiny fire that would normally clear out the underbrush, when you prevent the clear cutting of firebreaks, when you stop all human intervention into the forests for years, YOU GET HUGE F*$&ING FIRES when the inevitable dry year or two come along.
“Washington state had the largest wildfire in their history”
Maybe in the recorded history of the state of Washington, but I seriously doubt that it was the largest wildfire ever. By the way, how much of that wildfire was due to the mismanagement of the Bureau of Land Management, the U. S. Forestry Service and all the other federal, state and local agencies that have for years failed to manage the land under their control in as natural way as possible. Wildfires happen naturally. They get rid of the deadwood, and pests such as borer beetles, and provide space for rejuvenation. When man does his best to stop wildfires, and prevents responsible logging that takes the place of those wildfires, then eventually things build up to a point where nature again takes over.
Owen, since when did I say that? I didn’t. Climate Dissident asked where the wildfires were, I showed him that there was in fact a great deal of wildfire damage in 2015.
I fully agree that forest management policies are a contributing factor. But if that is the only factor, why was there a sudden increase in wildfire intensity starting in the mid 80s, in places that did not have no burn policies? : “… large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt…Changes in spring and summer temperatures associated with an early spring snowmelt come in the context of a marked trend over the period of analysis. Regionally averaged spring and summer temperatures for 1987 to 2003 were 0.87°C higher than those for 1970 to 1986.”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full
Why were the wildfires so bad in 1960? Why even bring up wildfires in this thread? Are you trying to assert that wildfires are due to “climate change”?
Alan, I was responding to Climate Dissident’s post.
That’s rather caused by low precipitation. I don’t think a fire which develops a few hundred degrees cares much + or – 1 degree.
Chris,
From the paper you cited, it appears as though large wildfire frequency and fire season duration have been in a 30 year ‘pause’ as evidenced from the graph. I see a step change, not a trend. It would be very interesting to see this analysis extended further back in time to include the drought periods of the 30’s and 50’s. Could this be cyclic?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full
Here is the graph
?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/01/more-spectacular-fraud-from-scientific-american/
Ben Palmer said: “That’s rather caused by low precipitation. I don’t think a fire which develops a few hundred degrees cares much + or – 1 degree.”
Of course it matters, +1 degree is a big deal if it means the snowpack melts faster. The higher elevations don’t get much spring and summertime rainfall, and therefor the snowpack is important in helping to maintain moisture for the trees and underbrush. The article I referenced clearly states that.
Chris,
The issue isn’t one degree. Global warming has stopped. So you should stop deflecting.
Your wild-eyed terror is over a natural rise of one (1) part in 10,000 of harmless, beneficial CO2.
Get a grip.
KTM, I’m not sure what Scientific American has to do with this thread, I didn’t reference them. And of course we have far more resources and advance detection systems now compared to 1937. For example, tanker planes that can drop fire suppressant, and the ability to drop smoke jumpers into remote sites so they can dig fire breaks.
dbstealey, I posted a link to a peer reviewed paper that looked at increased forest fire risk using actual data. You could’ve read it and outlined any issues you have with it. But no, as usual, you hide behind your standard platitudes about so few ppm and beneficial CO2. As Yoda would say, the science is weak in this one.
Actually, considering we have been in a recovery from the Little Ice Age, one would expect nearly a 90% chance that by natural variation alone, this year will be warmer than the previous one which was warmer than the one before (at 90% confidence) going back to the mid 1800s.
The fact the world has been warming is not in dispute. Only the “How much?” and “Why?” questions are disputed. “How much?” is disputed because constant undocumented adjustments are made to the instrument temperature record and that record is way too short for the purpose of documenting climate. “Why” is disputed because unimaginative climate scientists think that “because we can’t think of anything other cause” is a good enough argument to condemn all of humanity to short, brutish, and cold lives.
Not all of humanity.
Just that portion that is of no use to liberals.
Just as chances are that the hottest weeks in any one year will happen in July or August (January -February in the South) so the hottest years will happen in the world’s hottest periods. We live in the hottest period in the last 1000 years – so the chances are overwhelmingly high that the hottest years will occur right now. You need no wizard statistician to work that one out.
Thanks for the tip, Mike. I guess if the previous calcs were wrong then we should be wary of any new ones.
I mean, from 1 in 650 million to one in 5 thousand! That’s a discrepancy wide enough for the whole cast of Aida, performing with live elephants. Plus a couple of Boeings.
Yep,
That level of precision requires extremely advanced computer models.
Else they might predict merely 500 times or 50 times or even no times…
I wonder if he sees the irony of “correcting” someone else’s miscalculations, and criticizing their poor methodology? Not only that, but he’s so obviously biasing his own “research” by only compare time frames in which human influence is possible to each other, instead of…comparing them to past climate changes where human influence was not possible. What a baffoon!
Since you ask Climate Dissident, it was a very dry spring season in Tasmania and we currently have a lot of bush fires but a quick look at recent rainfall data doesn’t show any long term decline despite a lot of people’s perceptions.
So does that mean that a 0.3°C, or whatever is currently being claimed, temperature rise causes bush fires? If that is so then the radiant energy emanating from a wild animal in the forest ought to cause the bush to ignite wherever the creature goes.
Thanks for that ;). I’m willing to introduce you to my hiking buddies who would probably back you up on that thought. From my perspective, I think solo hiking has a lot of attractions.
Piltdown mike.
There are very interesting parallels between the climate scare and the ozone scare which older readers will remember. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833573_ozonePaperResource
Can we just be clear here – that calculating the odds of the temperature exceeding the average temperature for all of a number of consecutive year, month, week, day or whatever period – on the assumption that the temperature for one such period is independent from the next must be a candidate for the MOST STUPID THING EVER ATTEMPTED USING MATHEMATICS.
When I first encountered this kind of proposed calculation (one in Rolling Stone Magazine) I thought that it must have been originally proposed as a kind of scientific joke.
The Rolling Stone version took consecutive months above average and then appeared to have raised the chance of any one month being above average (assumed to be one in two) to the power of the number of months. So, something like 0.5 raised to the power of 272.
And happily for the morons performing this meaningless task, the number before their eyes had revealed itself to be equivalent to approximately the reciprocal of the number of atoms in the universe, or suchlike.
In the same way that grains of rice multiply on the squares of a chess-board, in the widely repeated story.
Unfortunately, had they put down their beers and their calculator for a minute and pondered upon how such a number could have emerged from such a simplistic analysis then it may have struck them that something was dramatically wrong with their starting assumptions and therefore also with the functioning of their own brains. Sadly they were too dazzled by the “great significance” of their own conclusions, and so the number made its way into a “news” article without editorial criticism.
And so we have yet further evidence that Kruger and Dunning may have stumbled upon a significant truth.
Of course a child, when introduced to probability and the calculation of combined odds of two events happening is carefully advised that probability can indeed be multiplied – where the events are INDEPENDENT.
But, in our age of advance university level education for all, such trivial details are seemingly left behind in junior grade. And replaced in the later stage of education with pretension, hogwash and muddled thinking.
Just to check that my recollection of this had not been merely an unpleasant dream – I have redicovered the original article referred to in my above post.
In the article it was 327 months and the number created is suggested to be equivalent to stars in the universe, not atoms.
But the method and absurd conclusion appears to be as tedious and meaningless as I have described.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
The number of atoms and stars in the universe are, for any reasonable purpose, the same.
According to my analysis of GISS v3 anomalies, here’s a record that still stands: All ten of the ten years ending in 1947 were hotter than ANY previous year in the historical temperature record.
Back then, people noticed that glaciers were on balance retreating and thought, “Huh, looks like the climate is in a gradual warming phase,” instead of getting the vapours (aka “Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder” when it involves those involved in climate research).
And so, as others have already noted, the odds are skewed in favour of seeing a string of the warmest years in the most recent past… regardless of what humans have been doing.
“Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next
What’s the rule for distinguishing between ‘waxing and waning’ and ‘varying erratically’?
This is dire.
To which we can add a small correction to Mann’s limited understanding:
Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over periods of MANY MILLENNIA, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next
MILLENNIA, Mike, you foolish boy, not years. It waxes and wanes over vast stretches of time.
We already have quite conclusive evidence of such change.
Stop trying to sweep the truth about climate under the carpet…
They haven’t adjusted/ cooled 1997 yet.. be patient they’ll get round to it.
There will always be rent seekers leeching upon the public purse. What is incredible is that these ones have been allowed to get away with it for so long.
And been so wrong – every prediction they ever made has been wrong. And yet they still dictate public policy that destroys good people.
600 to 130000 times! Wow, that’s what I call an error estimate! But why 600? Why not -10?
“This “serial correlation” means that the chance likelihood of runs of warm temperature — nine very warm years over the course of a decade — is much greater than if temperatures were uncorrelated from one year to the next.”
You mean a similar effect like what could occur if there were a naturally increasing temperature trend? That temperature isn’t wholly random? Color me shocked. That still doesn’t make it AGW simply because it isn’t random.
But you don’t understand! The handle of the hokey stick was flat as a board. According to the great oracle MM, temperature never changed until evil man started burning coal. (/sarc)
What’s the odds of almost half of those ~1 C of warming disappearing in just 10 days? Oh wait, it just happened in the last 10 days (at least according to the NCEP CSFR reanalysis of WeatherBell) 😉
According to my computer model the Edsel was the most successful new car launch in history, the only problem with the Edsel was that they had limited computer resources back in the 50’s, and they just couldn’t see how much consumers really wanted, needed, and loved that car.
Mann et al are working with heavily adjusted data. I wonder if they haven’t just invalidated the adjustments.
Mann is starting to remind me of Obama and Trump–just a bunch of bloviating rhetoric that should be shunned by any thinking person.
Tut-tut yourself, Mann continues to be quite well discredited by his own efforts alone.
‘Record-setting temperatures over the past century and a half are extremely unlikely to have occurred without human-caused climate change, but the odds of that happening are not quite as low as previously reported, according to an international team of meteorologists.’
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Global temperature varies over time. We know some of the mechanisms that effect change, but the overall process is not known. “We don’t know what all causes it, so it must be humans.” No. That they can’t figure it out is not evidence for a theory.
Calculation of “odds” is bizarre. A stunt, not science.
I wonder what their conclusions would be if they applied the same technique to the 1910-1940 period, exhibiting an increase virtually indistinguishable from the 1970-2000 period.
That’s the first thing that occurred to my mind when I encountered this particular breed of donkey-poop.
The same exercise could be conducted for the 1910-1940 or 1915-1945 period and the result would be the same.
Except that such a result would not be explainable, in terms of one simplistic theory that the global climate temperature is governed by variation in the levels of one gas.